Disagree, then, but the reality is that the USTA gave us no working definition of 'flagrant'.

And the definition of flagrant is not so shockingly obvious or flagrant.

Click to expand...

Right, it's open for interpretation. I never said otherwise. I just said that I definitely disagree with your interpretation. I don't find it to be logical or compelling in any way.

It seems clear to me that the rule did intend for footfaults to only be called by a receiver in an unofficiated match when the footfault in question was glaringly obvious. It also seems clear to me that the rule did not intend for the receiver to have to read the server's mind about whether it was done intentionally or not.

But like all words it has a range of meaning, but for a foot fault to be called by an umpire it must be obvious so ... why would flagrant just mean obvious?

Click to expand...

I think flagrant is meant as a stronger form of obvious in this situation, to reflect the relatively poor vantage point that the receiver has to make the call relative to the vantage point an official or umpire would have.

Under your apparent interpretation, why would there be a rule that effectively says "Someone can clearly and obviously break this rule, and not be able to be legitimately be called on it, as long as they didn't really mean to do it." ?

Are there any rules in any sports that exist that say something like this? It makes no sense.

I think that would be a worse rule. The people who wrote the rule presumably do to.

You have more clearly revealed your agenda though. You think no returner should ever be able to call a footfault in an unofficiated match. This is clearly not consistent with the actual rules, so you twist your 'interpretation' of this rule in such a way so that the end effect is the same as your made up rule, not because this is an actual logical interpretation of the real rule, but because it's more consistent with what you think the rule should be.

The problem is that your interpretation doesn't make sense. I'd love to see you actually address this question, instead of ignoring it:

Under your apparent interpretation, why would there be a rule that effectively says "Someone can clearly and obviously break this rule, and not be able to be legitimately be called on it, as long as they didn't really mean to do it." ?

Click to expand...

This whole thing is still not very useful or productive though. I'm going to belatedly take my own advice and stop posting here now, I've said what I have to say, and I don't see how continuing would be in any way productive (not that any of it was productive to start with). Have a nice rest of the thread.

Ah ha, I think we're onto something here! Perhaps the USTA could have a pheremone developed to be applied to players feet, and when they foot fault, would trigger a smell-ometer to beep loudly, similar to the electronic let cord pick-up device. It could be called the FRAGRANT FLAGRANT FOOT FAULT-PHEREMONE-OMETER.

I video tape my matches and was shocked when I watched the match and saw that every time he served (first and second), his heal was the only part of his right foot that was not already totally inside the court. By this, I mean his heel was touching the inside of the baseline.

Click to expand...

And this is the RL situation.... surprisingly common during club type play.

Flagrant?

Clearly a FF but it went unrecognized during actual play; needed video to become aware. In a way I'm glad there are those who campaign against this stuff. I'm just not that guy -- much to do with nothing.

(Given that rec servers strike the ball anywhere from 1/2 foot behind the line to perhaps nearly two feet inside the baseline I think there is way too much emphasis placed on the advantage of a hacker having toes over the line. At a high serve (4.5+) level it's likely quite an advantage but those with this type of technically sound serve aren't fumbling around with their feet chasing tosses.)